Denis O'Brien fears the Moriarty tribunal is capable of producing a report that could lead the general public to believe he is "guilty of corrupting the political process".

Telecoms billionaire Mr O'Brien has argued that if the tribunal chairman applies to him the same standard of proof he applied to former Taoiseach Charles Haughey then he will be potentially exposed to "enormous financial and personal consequences" in the event of an adverse finding.

Mr O'Brien was awarded Ireland's second mobile telephone licence in controversial circumstances which have been investigated by the tribunal.

In a submission to the tribunal, Mr O'Brien says his business rivals are hoping to use Mr Justice Michael Moriarty's report, expected later this year, to seek to ensure that his companies will not be awarded any future mobile licences.

These potential consequences are "not merely speculative", he said in the little reported-upon submission last year, since interested parties are "anxiously and expectantly" awaiting the delivery of the tribunal's report which they hope may be used as a "roadmap to financial gain".

ANALYSIS PAGE 24

In 1995, Mr O'Brien set up and chaired the Esat Digifone consortium, which submitted a bid for the second Irish GSM mobile phone licence. Esat Digifone's bid beat off five other applicants, all of which included major international operators.

The awarding of the licence to Esat Digifone is one of the matters being inquired into by the Moriarty tribunal, which was established in 1997 to investigate the affairs of Charles Haughey and Michael Lowry. Former Fine Gael Minister Michael Lowry was the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications at the time.

The tribunal has examined financial transactions involving bank accounts controlled by Mr O'Brien and Mr Lowry.

Mr Justice Moriarty made highly critical findings against Mr Haughey. These were described as "reasoned expressions of opinion".

Mr O'Brien expressed concern that this suggested an improperly low standard of proof and that if that same standard of proof were to be applied to himself, then he faced an unwarranted risk of severe personal and financial damage.

Mr O'Brien says he did not pay any money to Michael Lowry, nor did he engage in any acts designed to influence the former minister in relation to the licence. He claims his company won the licence because it submitted the best bid.

But any suggestion that money was paid by him to Mr Lowry, he says, would have severe consequences for him beyond the financial sphere. It would, he says, cause significant damage to his name, and it would also lead the general public to believe that he was found "guilty" of corrupting the political process.

He argued that any adverse finding against him would be of such great seriousness that any underlying facts would need to be proved "as a matter of substantial probability" before being accepted by the tribunal.

Since the award of Ireland's second licence, Mr O'Brien has secured 35 licences around the world to operate mobile phone networks.

Were adverse findings to be made, Mr O'Brien says his business rivals would use such a report to seek to ensure that his companies would not be awarded any future mobile licences.

The report, he says, could be used by them for the purpose of discrediting him as a businessman, who should not be permitted to play a role in the telecommunications network of other countries. This may, he says, have "enormous financial and personal consequences" for him.

Mr O'Brien currently has many licence applications pending all over the world. In making these applications, he is in constant contact with many regulators and governments to seek the ground work for liberalisation of telecommunications environment.

He fears that if the tribunal were to arrive at "reasoned expressions of opinion", which cast him as having been engaged in corrupt activities, this would be "hugely damaging" to him, his companies "and their employees". He believes the tribunal should recognise that.

Last november Mr Justice Moriarty ruled that the tribunal was and had at all material times been required to apply a civil standard of proof. He said that standard was not the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt and he noted that this is not contended for in submissions received.

However, he added: "In the circumstances of the matters falling to be dealt with in the second part of its report, the tribunal sees no reason to depart from the flexible approach, proportionate to the nature and gravity of the matters arising."

- JODY CORCORAN